Brett Stevens’ Nihilism Published

nihiilsm brett stevens

Brett Stevens‘ Nihilism: A Philosophy Based in Nothingness and Eternity has been published by Manticore Press. The book may be purchased from Amazon in multiple countries.

Most people see the world in binary categories. They believe that there is either an inherent moral good that we must all obey, or there are no rules and life is pointless anarchy. Nihilism argues for a middle path: we lack inherent order, but are defined by our choices, which means that we must start making smarter choices by understanding the reality in which we live more than the human social reality which we have used to replace it in our minds.

A work of philosophy in the continental tradition, Nihilism examines the human relationship with philosophical doubt through a series of essays designed to stimulate the ancient knowledge within us of what is right and what is real. Searching for a level of thought underneath the brain-destroying methods of politics and economics, the philosophy of nihilism approaches thought at its most basic level and highest degree of abstraction. It escapes the bias of human perspective and instructs our ability to perceive itself, unleashing a new level of critical thinking that side-steps the mental ghetto of modernity and the attendant problems of civilization decline and personal lassitude.

While many rail against nihilism as the death of culture and religion, the philosophy itself encourages a consequentialist, reality-based outlook that forms the basis for moral choice. Unlike the control-oriented systems of thought that form the basis of contemporary society, nihilism reverts the crux of moral thinking to the relationship between the individual and the effects of that individual’s actions in reality. From this, a new range of choice expands, including the decision to affirm religious and moral truth as superior methods of Darwinistic adaptation to the question of human survival, which necessarily includes civilization.

Inspired by transcendentalist thinkers and the ancient traditions of both the West and the Far East, the philosophy of nihilism negates the false intermediate steps imposed on us by degenerated values systems. In the footsteps of philosopher Friedrich W. Nietzsche, who called for a “re-evaluation of all values,” nihilism subverts linguistic and social categorical thinking in order to achieve self-discipline of the mind. As part of this pursuit, Nihilism investigates thought from writers as diverse as William S. Burroughs, Aldous Huxley, Arthur Schopenhauer and Immanuel Kant. For those who seek the truth beyond the socially-convenient explanations that humans tell one another, nihilism is a philosophy both for a new age and for all time.

125 thoughts on “Brett Stevens’ Nihilism Published”

  1. Ggallin1776 says:

    In other news,metalsucks resident jew Axl Rosenkike put out a book this week called “How to be a fat hipster & 99 other worthless how-to’s from an unwashed sjw living in his mother’s basement” via Weimar Publications.

    1. dude could you not says:

      Similar items customers were interested in:
      lube
      realistically veined 12 inch “bigboy” explorer

  2. I’ll probably pick this up. Thanks for the recommendation.

    1. I just finished reading the summary, and it sounds like I won’t find much that I disagree with or that is new to me.
      But it will still be entertaining, at least. And I might find some refinements to my ideas.
      I’m still getting it.

      1. El Duende says:

        hahahahahahahahahaha

        OK.

  3. LostInTheANUS says:

    Can I request Brett’s signature and dick pic in my order?

    1. Burt Stebins says:

      That`ll be 10$ extra.

  4. canadaspaceman says:

    i refuse amazon

    1. It should be at Costco, too!

  5. Rainer Weikusat says:

    Is this without close-up shots of naked men? If so, I might buy it as I was thinking about buying a new book, anyway.

    1. Rainer Weikusat says:

      As someone might consider that a loaded question: That’s a »feature« of the ANUS site which immediately stopped me from reading more than a single text published there.

      Investigating Schopenhauer and Kant suggests following Nietzsche’s footsteps in reverse (I’d link to »Why we are not idealists&laquo here but some clown is bound to stop reading after the old-fashionable translation of La Gaya Scienza and go off on this tangent) but uncommon combinations are not a reason to reject an unknown text out of hand. But »The merry pranksters in newer costumes« would be one.

  6. Svmmoned says:

    That book is written for those from outside of sites on which nihilism was in its more or less fixed form presented already for years. Now it cannot be easily ignored, if one is about to honestly approach the subject. Having said that, I’m still waiting for that book about metal. There are already some publications (like that of Southgate’s) which tried to do it properly. They grasp some of its context, but not metal itself. Btw. someone mentioned A.N.U.S. in interesting context: https://attackthesystem.com/2015/04/06/conservatism-traditionalism-and-nationalism-in-heavy-metal/

  7. Lockhart says:

    Congrats, Brett. I’ll have to snag a copy.

  8. Necronomeconomist says:

    Brett! Congratulations on the publication.

    Nihilism argues for a middle path: we lack inherent order, but are defined by our choices, which means that we must start making smarter choices by understanding the reality in which we live more than the human social reality which we have used to replace it in our minds.

    Sounds suspiciously Buddhist! That’s cool. Didn’t you represent Advaita Hinduism back in the day? Maybe I’m finding that dovetailed with your nihilism.

  9. Necronomeconomist says:

    Oh whoops… The italics weren’t supposed to continue on forever. The inserted text ended at ‘replace it in our minds.’ Fuck fuck FUCCCCCCK

  10. discodjango says:

    Congratulations, Brett!

  11. Nathan Metric says:

    Okay Mr. Nihilist…why SHOULD I buy your book?

  12. Othinus says:

    Congrats, will buy this!

    The chain of indispensable minds in sick times: Arthur Schopenhauer -> Friedrich Nietzsche -> Julius Evola -> Brett Stevens

    1. Rainer Weikusat says:


      According to Evola, virtually all of modern and Twentieth Century philosophy is evasion or deception. Ride the Tiger’s chapters on Edmund Husserl, Martin Heidegger, and Jean-Paul Sartre – not to mention Nietzsche – exposit the view that these thinkers, too, partake in the process of reducing reality to nothingness. Nietzsche, in Evola’s commentary, participates in the reduction of Transcendence to immanence: “Once the idols have fallen, good and evil have been surpassed, along with all the surrogates of God, and this mist has lifted from one’s eyes, nothing is left to Nietzsche but ‘this world,’ life, the body.” The Übermensch is Nietzsche’s ersatz-Transcendence. Evola ranks the Übermensch, a deferred futurity that supposedly justifies action now on its non-present behalf, as “not very different from Marxist-communist ideology,” with its sinewy image of Socialist Humanity.

      https://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/4371

      The fundamental problem with Communism (as far as I can tell that) is that it assumes that a future society based on humans acting unselfishly in the common interest because that’s also in their own, best interest is possible. This is – frankly – idiotic: It would indeed require a race of supermen: to be workable. There are some very superficial similarities between this and Nietzsche (I may have invented the »race of supermen«) but that’s really mostly the “in future”, the differences are much more striking: Nietzsche is fundamentally an individualist and elitist, not a prophet of the future paradise for the masses he considers to be hopelessly lost. The Nietzschean superman is an individual which is disengaged itself (himself?) both from the modern and traditional follies making up the fabric of society and embraces life as an opportunity without being hampered by fearing death. And that’s not the opportunity to GET.RICH.QUICK as material possession beyond what’s necessary for life are just another millstone around the neck of the person amassing them (neatly expressed by Thoreau as the question if the farmer owns the cattle or if it’s not really the cattle owning the farmer, considering the lengths he has to go to maintain them).

      Something which has to be mentioned here as it’s one of the well-known facts everyone happily ignores because they’re inconvenient: The so-called Will To Power is not a work by Nietzsche but a collection of unrelated text fragments in all kinds of forms created by his sister based on her policial ideology Nietzsche himself rejected very explicitly while still being capable of doing that. Consequently, the only honest thing to do with that is to ignore it completely as speculations about what the author had done had the author done anything are necessarily baseless and a collage of this kind is always a work of the person who composed it.

      Nietzsche himself was also quite explicit in rejecting Schopenhauer as romantic decadent.

    2. Vigilance says:

      Can we all take a vow to no longer take Evola seriously?

      1. Vigilance says:

        Also Schopenhauer rejects Realism while prozak Nihilism leads to it.

        1. I wouldn’t go so far that Schopenhauer rejects realism as he states that empirical reality is representation, and indeed is real

          1. Vigilance says:

            That’s not Realism then is it, goatcraft?

            1. Brandon says:

              “Realism, at it simplest and most general, is the view that entities of a certain type have an objective reality, a reality that is completely ontologically independent of our conceptual schemes, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc.”

              It’s quite obvious that Schopenhauer didn’t reject realism because 1) empirical reality is real, 2) the Will manifests in true representations via certain methods (he held artists as like a type of priesthood), 3) his general interests in science and the world around him. He said the world is his representation as a catch-all phrase, not that it all sprang from his mind. He continued the works of Kant, who held that man is neither god nor animal, but ‘reason incarnate’, which Schopenhauer furthered with his own coinage of ‘rational animal’ (his pessimism leaking into his works), but what he meant was that the rational nature of man is what separates us from animals who are in a constant state of reaction. Schopenhauer never gave the individual complete power over the world around himself. If you’re basing any set of metaphysics as anti-realism or a rejection of realism, then you’re off to a bad start.

              1. Roger says:

                Why the fuck are you guys worrying about whether Schopenhauer’s idealism is a form of realism?

                If you think reality is just a collection of ‘representations’, whatever the hell that means, then you’re off the intellectual roll-call to begin with.

                1. If you think reality is just a collection of ‘representations’, whatever the hell that means, then you’re off the intellectual roll-call to begin with.

                  Schopenhauer’s point was really first explicated by Kant: we do not know the world in itself, only a highly filtered version. Schopenhauer added to that knowledge the idea that not only do we not know the world, but we create our own mentally-convenient version of it. Nietzsche tacked on the fact that we understand ourselves and our world through language, which is inherently misleading because each person will interpret it differently. Nihilism cures the above by saying that knowledge, communication and truth are nonsense designed to foster a projection of universalism, and that only brutal realism can cure us of our inherent “talking monkeys with car keys” tendency toward the solipsistic illusion which creates universalism.

                  1. Agree_to_disagree says:

                    “Nietzsche tacked on the fact that we understand ourselves and our world through language, which is inherently misleading because each person will interpret it differently”

                    Which is why the laws of nature are best described with mathematics. Philosophers’ disdain for maths is one of the reasons they fail at understanding the world, and want the less intelligent people (everyone else) to fail with them.

                  2. Roger says:

                    Nietzsche wasn’t as much of a relativism as you’re painting him to be. He held a metaphysical, ontological, view well known as ‘the will to power’. From his ontology came his meta-ethics, the idea that morality is the will to power of the weak and downtrodden. This meta-ethical component to his writings would make zero sense if it didn’t stem from an ontology.

                    On the question of his epistemology, Nietzsche was a perspectivalist, not a relativist.

                    And also, you saying that ‘truth’ and ‘knowledge’ is just bullshit simply undermines the very statement you use to express this idea; not to mention everything else you’ve ever written.

                    1. Roger says:

                      Let me put it this way: to someone who once inspired me to think more

                      How am I to respect the beliefs of someone who claims to state the fact(?!) that there is no truth? For God’s sake, man.

                  3. Spaceplacenta says:

                    If this is your response to the above, your book will not just be read, but taken with a highlighter, sharpie, and pages with annotations stapled to it, and mailed back to you. I’ve already bought it, so if money is your gain, you already won.

                    1. Just write a letter explaining where you think I am wrong, or post it here. No need for dramatics.

      2. Hræsvelgr says:

        No, but I hereby solemnly vow never to take Lance Viggiano seriously.

        1. Vigilance says:

          At someone has some sense.

      3. fenrir says:

        Seriously?… *sigh*

        1. Vigilance says:

          He’s trash. His occult society was a miserable failure and his philosophy was merely an inversion of an abstraction termed “modernity”. Evola understood magic in theory but not in practice so what resulted out of that gives ill results for anyone who tried to use his methods – which bittersweetly includes his Society.

  13. Dave says:

    I can only imagine how cringeworthy this is. Hilarious shit.

  14. “Inspired by transcendentalist thinkers” – hopefully not the transcendentalism that sprang from Harvard in the 19th Century, which is different can of worms (unless you want your book in the wine section at Costco).

  15. Agree_to_disagree says:

    Without any sarcasm and just out of genuine curiosty, can someone explain as briefly as possible how being a nihilist can improve one’s understanding of the world better than fact-based knowledge of science, economy, finance, politics and how these interact together. I do mean “understanding” as in “knowledge”, not theology-like doctrine that just makes me feel better about me or my life.

    1. Vigilance says:

      Neither economics nor politics are truly “fact based.” The facts are insufficient on their own to make decisions in these matters; likewise to understand them strictly in such terms is equally short sighted. What we “ought” to do always befalls subjective judgements of value as well as unequal distributions of costs/benefits with clear winners and losers. Who should win and lose is not cut and dry.

      Where nihilism falls into this is, well, it doesn’t.

      In respects to science, nihilism as a rejection of mental-models as Absolute Truth has the potential to stall scientism (the epistemological position that only scientific knowledge is useful). Because for some reason the contradictory nature of the claim isn’t apparent enough for most people.

      1. Agree_to_disagree says:

        Scientism and science are two completely different things. Scientism is created by non-scientists who don’t understand shit about how science works but use it for ideological ends. The only way to prove, or disprove, a scientific statement is to produce a rigorous scientific demonstration, whether it is experimental or theoretical or both if required. Anyone who questions this is a fucking moron.

        1. Vigilance says:

          Yeah or you know ignore the thrust of my response.

          1. Necronomeconomist says:

            Word; Vigilance was using ‘scientism’ in the positive sense >>> a programmatic discrimination against the non-evidenced, the paranormal, the rectal pointillism…

            1. Agree_to_disagree says:

              Paranormal is bollocks, and that’s coming from an old X-Files fan.

          2. Agree_to_disagree says:

            Vigilance, the insult wasn’t for you, I understand you know the difference between science and scientism. However I’m perplexed by the statement that there’s no absolute truth – there is, e.g. apples do fall down to the ground, and Newton explained why. As for politics and economy being non-fact based… Let’s look at it that way: daily news feed us with reports from Syria – there is an ongoing war in Syria, where people die, that is a fact. What may be biased and non-factual is when they explain you why there’s a war and who’s the good guys and the bad guys. So the former is why I meany by ‘fact based knowledge’. The media take facts and present them to the public in a way that makes them appear as decorrelated from one another, which is why you can watch news every day and still understand absolutely nothing about the situation in Syria. But that doesn’t mean you can be a little bit smarter and gather facts from various sources, then figure out for yourself the whereabouts. Same goes with economy and finance. The facts are there, but it’s up to the observer to make sense of them. That can take many years.

            1. I’m perplexed by the statement that there’s no absolute truth – there is, e.g. apples do fall down to the ground, and Newton explained why.

              “Truth” is a type of human interpretation.

              To many people, that apple was shot by police, triggered by the Bilderbergers, or a manifestation of God.

              Are they bad? Or do people simply having different degrees of perception?

              When we claim something is “truth,” we are laying claim to its being universal, which necessarily implies that all people are equal and equally able to perceive, which is insane nonsense.

              1. There is another way to see truth:

                If one has the intelligence to understand what he sees, then he will that X is X.

                There may be a true answer to a mathematical question, but I may not know it, because I lack the intelligence or knowledge to understand. But if I didn’t lack it, then I would understand. So, the answer is true.

                1. An answer can be true in theory, but those are the details that make up part of a larger picture which forms the basis of understanding the application of that theory. We can view the logical X = X as a physical fact, but its recognition, assessment of its importance, and integration with the larger network of details that form the bigger picture are where the question of truth is decided.

              2. Agree_to_disagree says:

                Brett, you listed 3 causes as to why the apple falls from the tree. That is different to what I stated – the apple falls down. Not up, not sideways, it falls down and always does. Elementary particles, the core constituents of matter, are universal. This is a demonstrated fact, not an interpretation. If you realise this but continue to deny any concept of universality, you’re garanteed to engage on the slippery slope to ridicule.

              3. Roger says:

                You’re fucking kidding, right Brett?

                Those who say the apple was shot by police are fucking retards who are stuck to far up their own asses and own egos that that can’t manage a look out.

                ‘Nihilism’, in any productive sense, should be the idea that, not that nothing is true, but that a reality/external world genuinely exists but is often clouded by the social and ethical parts of our minds in the service of monkey business and social games, and slave morality.

                1. Agree_to_disagree says:

                  Agreed.

                2. ‘Nihilism’, in any productive sense, should be the idea that, not that nothing is true, but that a reality/external world genuinely exists but is often clouded by the social and ethical parts of our minds in the service of monkey business and social games, and slave morality.

                  These are one and the same in applied terms.

            2. Vigilance says:

              Fair enough. However, the statement was not “there is no absolute truth”. What I said was that scientific theories are simply elaborate mental models and do not constitute Absolute Truth. The thing in itself is inaccessible to human minds.

              Minor quibble: Newton didn’t give us a why. He gave us a how which is subject to being revised or entirely discarded. Ergo, that explanation is only ever approximated.

              1. Roger says:

                Einstein gave us the ‘why’.

                1. Internatio Reloaded says:

                  And Einstein’s explanation gives results that are pretty close to Newton’s when applied to cases Newton could witness back then, it doesn’t say the apples fall sideways.

                  Truth is a process, a mankind-wide adventure, a point none of those self-centered nihilists can ever understand, because they’re too busy feeling superior.

        2. fenrir says:

          I disagree.
          Plenty of “scientists” (people who study and practice in scientific fields) are firm followers of SCIENTISM, even if they do not wish to acknowledge it. Of course the largest part of these are the oopma-loompas of the scientific establishment that make up about 95% of it.

          Then there are philosophically-impaired narrow minds like Lawrence Kraus, who is a leader, so… yeah… no… Scientism is quite popular among professional “scientists”.

          1. Agree_to_disagree says:

            I’m curious to hear who are these “plenty of scientists”. Please share some names. So I know who you consider to be a scientist and what you consider to be scientism. I know many academics and never met anyone who may use decorrelated pieces of science to justify e.g. a creationist idelogy, or on the contrary, a scientist with delusions of grandeur who thinks science is a substitute to a religion.

            If you knew anything about the academic milieu you’d realise “scientists” aren’t mad geniuses or self-convinced prophets of a new age, just people who studied longer than most in order to acquire expertise in a very specialised field.

            1. Roger says:

              Right.

    2. Rejecting objective value is a vital step on the path to understanding your own innate natural values. It shields you from social morality: Using dishonesty and social thinking to adopt positions and behaviors that don’t align with your own moral nature.

      One who believes in objective morality may override his own morality because what ever the source of the objective morality says, must be right, and if it feels wrong or seems wrong emotionally or intellectually, it’s only due to a lack of understanding. The source of objective morality is always right.

      It can help one to have sovereign morality instead of slave morality.

      Science doesn’t deal with morality or values, as those exist within minds. Science deals with things that exist outside of minds, that can be measured and observed by others.

      1. Roger says:

        Fine, but when you then use ‘nihilism’ to advance the Objective Good of a traditionalism, then things become absurd.

        You might say ‘But Brett NEVER says traditionalism is more MORAL than everything else, he simply shows it leads to better CONSEQUENCES’.

        Fine, but then you have to tell me why some consequences are BETTER than others. You can’t be appealing to anything beyond your own utterly arbitrary desires.

        1. C.M. says:

          This is where I tend to get stuck as well.

          At this point, we have to admit that there is no universally desirable outcome toward which we can expect all people to work, having been convinced of a universally undeniable truth. So we find our true fellows who want to achieve the same things that we want to achieve. Maybe other people will get in our way; maybe we’ll be left alone. Disagreements are sure to arise.

          From here you turn toward tradition to see what has worked in the past, and what hasn’t.

          1. Roger says:

            No, you just look to history, surely.

            Looking to ‘tradition’, if you mean simply repeating what was done in the past, will not be the complete answer in a changing world.

            1. C.M. says:

              Obviously I didn’t mean that if we continue making the same choices then everything will work out fine.

              I’m talking of tradition that has outlasted social or industrial revolution. For example the traditional family unit, which has traditionally been the cell that makes up a robust society since pre-history.

              It’s the opposite attitude of saying “everything is screwed up, let’s forget all we know and rewrite the rules as they come to us”. Take a look at the US since the 1960s or so, for example.

              Eliminating traditions just because they conflict with the current social climate (meaning whims of the idiot mob) is a hazardous game. Meanwhile, preserving traditions that don’t seem to have any obvious utility or bearing on the current social climate is not actually as dangerous or insane as the modern open-minded “progressive” is convinced.

          2. So we find our true fellows who want to achieve the same things that we want to achieve.

            Correct. Just as in nature, there is a sorting process going on here.

            The upper echelon will want to create a great civilization with massively soul-sustaining art, architecture and the like.

            The middle echelon wants American-style suburbs and good jobs shuffling paper. They are mostly ruled by fear.

            The lower echelon wants drugs, booze and sex in whatever degraded form it can grip in its unwashed hands.

            You are ranked by your choices. No group understands those above it, so the power must rest with the highest.

            1. Rainer Weikusat says:

              What about people who are neither of that? Say, as in


              Death black metal is something all ordinary mortals should fear, not make into a trend!

              http://www.rusmetal.ru/vae_solis/mayhemint.htm

              [interview is referenced from the Wikipedia page so I went looking for an online version]

              I don’t literally agree with this statement because I’m nowaydays a bit older than this guy (despite he used to be 3 years older than me) and my ‘native’ people handling skills are considerably worse: »Being feared by people« is absolutely Not Good as they’ll either end up killing you (… hmm …) or arrange for you to be locked up in a mental asylum where someone forces “Shut up!”-pills down your throat whenever you’re opening your mouth. I’d change this into would fear were there brains differentiated enough to understand any of it.

              I have no desire to build »a great civilsation« aka ‘an exceptionally impressive ant heap’. I wouldn’t want to live in an »American-style suburb« and neither want nor have a »good job shuffling paper«. I’m also not mainly driven by xenophobia. Lastly, all these ‘bodily short-term pleasures’ are surely very entertaining but ‘kill the time’ is a bit too hollow on its own. I also certainly don’t want compete for the attention of the kind of women who encourage these dog-like two-legged creatures to compete for their attention: If I lose, I feel bad. Should I win, things will turn out to be even worse.

              Every manifestation of mainstream culture is just a noisy whirlwind encircling nothing with the noise being the actual purpose. The result of 25 years of trying to integrate with that is: I’m not like these people. I will never be like these people. I’m tired of trying. Hence, I’ll ‘function’ socially in whatever ways are required to maintain a reasonable (food, shelter, electricity etc) lifestyle but as far as I’m concerned, all echelons of ‘society’ end at my flat door or (when outside) in front of my perceptive organs.

              1. »Being feared by people« is absolutely Not Good as they’ll either end up killing you (… hmm …) or arrange for you to be locked up in a mental asylum where someone forces “Shut up!”-pills down your throat whenever you’re opening your mouth.

                Raging realist here. They will kill you anyway if you have something they want, or stand in your way. Politeness has nothing to do with it, as many of the victims of the LA Riots found out.

      2. Nathan Metric says:

        “Rejecting objective value is a vital step on the path to understanding your own innate natural values. It shields you from social morality: Using dishonesty and social thinking to adopt positions and behaviors that don’t align with your own moral nature.”

        What does that even mean? I’m going to interpret what you’re saying.

        1)There is no such thing as an “objective value”.
        2)Adhering to objective morality logically requires that one goes against their own instincts.
        3)Adhering to objective morality requires one to go along with the herd and be dishonest.

        Is my interpretation correct? If yes, then I think you are wrong on all counts.

        “One who believes in objective morality may override his own morality because what ever the source of the objective morality says, must be right, and if it feels wrong or seems wrong emotionally or intellectually, it’s only due to a lack of understanding. The source of objective morality is always right.”

        And that means….what exactly? If there is no such thing as objective morality then there is no moral significance to following your instincts vs not following them. You can’t deny the virtue of X behavior (that is that you ought to follow your instincts) and then expect people to exhibit that behavior. That is self-defeating behavior dude. Moral language goes OUT the window as soon as you reject objective morality otherwise you are just speaking gibberish.

        “It can help one to have sovereign morality instead of slave morality.”

        And that means…what exactly? Are you saying we SHOULD adhere to master morality?

        “Science doesn’t deal with morality or values, as those exist within minds. Science deals with things that exist outside of minds, that can be measured and observed by others.”

        Oh really? Are you saying there is no such thing as objective morality as soon as minds no longer exist?

        Let’s start with the basic observation that nihilists tend to believe that there is a morality in the sense that if you value X there is a proper way to achieve X called Y. For example, if a wolf values survival the wolf ought to catch prey. This is not what people typically think of as objective morality, but let’s just take the nihilist’s word that this is an example of objective morality to prove a point. It is a good starting point,

        Now, does anyone seriously expect us to believe that this IF/Ought morality that even nihilists accept as valid magically becomes bogus as soon as wolves no longer exist? That seems patently absurd. Seems like a denial of the uniformity of nature. This If/Ought morality would still be an objective ethical rule even if not a single wolf or a single life form existed. This if/ought morality would still apply to theoretical wolves or other theoretical predators.
        So no, it is not true that objective morality disappears as soon as rational beings disappear. This if/ought morality that even nihilists believe in is proof that morality is derived from logic and logic exists regardless of whether rational beings who can comprehend logic exist.

        1. You people are complicating things too much.

          There is no objective value, since value is a function of the brain. What we value is a part of our personalities like every other part of our minds.
          There is value, but it exists within the mind, not outside of it, as part of one’s nature.
          When one is aligned in thought and behavior with his nature (in this case, his natural values), then he
          feels more healthy and is less conflicted. Sovereign morality is when one derives moral values from his nature. For example, realizing beauty that one is naturally attracted to, instead of ugliness, which one is naturally repulsed from.

          Slave morality is when one accepts judgements that are not derived from one’s nature. A self hating gay is one example. Another example is the muslim who doesn’t think or feel that eternal torment is a good idea, but who tells himself that it must be right, because god ordained it.

          All of this was clearly stated in my first message.

          1. There is no objective value, since value is a function of the brain.

            I agree. Different brains, different values, which is why populations separate and go their own ways.

            Universalism is nonsense: “Everyone must believe what I do, because it is Absolute Truth.” There is no Absolute Truth, only reality.

            And that is perceived unequally, generally by degree of will to do so and innate abilities, therefore there is no “truth” that exists for everyone.

            This is unpopular because it means that not everyone can be “right,” only have preferences… and that some preferences are more realistic, thus more likely to succeed, than others.

            1. Rainer Weikusat says:


              Universalism is nonsense: “Everyone must believe what I do, because it is Absolute Truth.” There is no Absolute Truth, only reality.

              There’s a famous definition of reality attributed to TS Eliot: »What doesn’t go away when you stop believing in it.«: Without the concept of ‘absolutely true’, ie, regardless of the opinions of individuals, there can be no reality, only subjective perceptions of equal merit (or lack thereof). But reality is concrete and values (or logic) are abstract so, this isn’t strictly the same. Nevertheless, grounding abstract choices in reality as in


              some preferences are more realistic, thus more likely to succeed, than others

              effectively established an absolute truth in this domain, too: Assuming some consensus on what constitutes ‘success’ as given, whatever is most suitable for ‘succeeding’ is ‘absolutely’/ objectively the best/ correct choice.

            2. Thewaters says:

              You see, the only absolute truth is that there is no absolute truth but reality.

        2. Rainer Weikusat says:


          1)There is no such thing as an “objective value”.
          2)Adhering to objective morality logically requires that one goes against their own instincts.
          3)Adhering to objective morality requires one to go along with the herd and be dishonest.

          Is my interpretation correct? If yes, then I think you are wrong on all counts.

          I think you’re right in pointing out that the way this is worded makes no sense in English (at least). Denying objectivity of ‘values’ basically reduces these to entirely irrational opinion choices aka ‘tastes’ of the “yellow is the most beautiful colour” kind: It denies the existence of anything one would usually call ‘value’ and using the term nevertheless could be regarded as ‘false flag operation’. But a more sympathetic interpretation which is laxer wrt the words being used seems also possible to me: Replace the ‘objective value’ with ‘external entity with the authority to make ex cathedra value descisions’, IOW, surrender your individual judgement to someone else. The text would make sense then.

          This doesn’t render the idea of ‘objectively valuable’ moot as people can rationally disagree on anything provided they accept that any or all subjective approximations of the objective quality could be wrong or at least deficient in certain respects (“Whoever doubts whatever I say must be a liar” obviously doesn’t go with that but that’s a different conversation).


          Are you saying there is no such thing as objective morality as soon as minds no longer exist? […] logic exists regardless of whether rational beings who can comprehend logic exist.

          Neither ‘morality’ nor ‘logic’ exist as both are abstract. But a valid conclusion remains valid according to the logical rules which governed the reasoning process regardless of presence or absence of individual capable of comprehending or admitting it: Torturing Winston Smith doesn’t change the mathematical definition of 2 + 2.

          1. Denying objectivity of ‘values’ basically reduces these to entirely irrational opinion choices aka ‘tastes’ of the “yellow is the most beautiful colour” kind: It denies the existence of anything one would usually call ‘value’ and using the term nevertheless could be regarded as ‘false flag operation’.

            I disagree. For values to be objective, they must be provable, and that is not possible with forward-looking thought. We cannot prove that a great empire is better than living in mud huts, but we can choose it, and then reality decides which thrives and which does not. There are also degrees involved. For many, living in mud huts with more free time may be superior to having an advanced civilization, and since advanced civilizations seem to self-destruct, there is no objective metric there proving superiority.

            What this means, in turn, is that we are all known by what we can know (Dunning-Kruger) and some will rise above the rest based on their choices. This is more consistent with Darwinism than the idea of a universal absolute truth which will raise up all men, which is such kumbaya nonsense as to be painful.

            1. Rainer Weikusat says:

              NB: I’m going to restrict myself to the ‘moral’ aspect.

              It’s possible to define »objective« as »provable« but this just renders the discussion moot (aside: This also introduces a methodological problem: Something which isn’t provable today may well become provable tomorrow). But that wasn’t my idea of »objective«. I was using it in the sense of »applies equally to everyone« Eg, I consider honesty an objective value despite I have nothing tangible beyond my opinion on this to stand on (tradition motivates but doesn’t strictly authorize): If someone’s being dishonest to me (or anyone else) I don’t shrug my shoulders and react in a “Well, he just doesn’t value honesty, that’s totally fine”-way but mark him down as crook.

              1. Rainer Weikusat says:

                Universally applicable may be a better term here but that’s also problematic (as Nathan Metric pointed out): If the notion that values are just opinions is accepted, there are no grounds for expecting other people to care about them: I can’t fault someone who steals something from someone else if he honestly believes that this is morally ok unless I maintain that such a moral is faulty, IOW, that he is not entitled to this particular »opinion«.

                1. If the notion that values are just opinions is accepted, there are no grounds for expecting other people to care about them

                  That is correct. And, even more accurately, other people do not care about them — except when convenient.

                  1. Vigilance says:

                    The ground has always been agreement upon shared values. The values themselves don’t have to be objective to be important nor agreed upon.

                    “It’s – our – opinion”

                    1. Roger says:

                      They don’t have to be, but historically the tendency has been to ‘absolutise’ morality in order to foist it upon others.

                      If we recognise that all values are subjective, then we may CHOOSE which ones best promote our goals.

                      This is the part of ‘Nihilism’ I agree with.

                      This does NOT mean, however, that EVERYTHING is subjective.

              2. “If someone’s being dishonest to me (or anyone else) I don’t shrug my shoulders and react in a “Well, he just doesn’t value honesty, that’s totally fine”-way but mark him down as crook.”

                You do this because it’s your nature to have that value. Don’t mistake a part of yourself for a part of the universe.

                1. Of course you are a part of the universe, so all of your traits are thus also part of the universe.
                  But you know what I mean.
                  They exist within you, and you exist in the universe, but they are no more than that.

            2. Roger says:

              Thanks Brett,

              I agree with everything you just wrote.

              The problem with it, to me and my intellect, is that it seems to suggest a vulgar form of social darwinism. On your logic, Hillary Clinton’s wealth, power, and corruption is ‘good’ because reality is rewarding her grubby efforts to reach power.

              My killing you (if I didn’t like you, if I could get away with the crime, and if it was in my best interests – say, i was trying to publish a competing book on nihilism) is ‘good’ because reality ‘rewards’ me.

              1. On your logic, Hillary Clinton’s wealth, power, and corruption is ‘good’ because reality is rewarding her grubby efforts to reach power.

                I disagree. The consequences of the self-serving pursuit of wealth, power and corruption are always bad. The person seeking them gains in the short term, but we can see the fallout over the years.

                1. Roger says:

                  What are you disagreeing with me about?

                  So, Clinton dies having become the first female president of the US, amassing more wealth and riches. She does not give one shit about a glorious civilization.

                  She has embraced ‘Nihilism’ and has effectively used everyone and everyone to maneuver ends to achieve means. And she has been ‘rewarded’ by reality for thus maneuvering.

                  1. Yes, evil wins if you let it. You may not like this, but it’s reality.
                    You can not pray it away. There is no judgement after death, no sweet revenge for those who were wronged. If you are not victorious over evil, it will win, and those who do evil will be rewarded.

                    1. Another way to phrase this: there are many paths to good, but they go in the opposite direction of the paths to bad, which include every option that is not good. We either affirmatively choose good, or end up at (bad/stupid/evil/corrupt/selfish) by default.

                    2. Roger says:

                      Hang on, the claim from Brett’s ‘Nihilism’ is that REALITY will select some over others. Because REALITY (in the form of
                      ‘natural selection’) is some essentialist equivalent of God for Brett, what it selects is ‘GOOD’ and what it doesn’t select is ‘BAD’.

                      ‘Reality’ will probably select Hillary Clinton for her cunning maneuverings of means to meet ends, corruption and general slyness, so, by Brett’s logic, Hillary is GOOD

                      Get it?

          2. Vigilance says:

            Unless you can demonstrate the goodness of a “Tree” alongside it’s other perceptible properties, objective morality is nonsense. Most people side-step this question by appealing to a subject “the tree is good for shade.” Which is, well, Subjective in the most literal sense.

            1. Rainer Weikusat says:

              Easy. There’s a tree growing in my garden. My rent contract prohibits me from removing any plants. Ergo, it’s a good tree because if I thought otherwise, it would grow there just the same.

              I don’t quite understand what you were getting at.

              1. There is no objective good. There is good to your nature. You will, if you are healthy and reasonable, try to choose what is good to you, because it’s in your nature. You do it for the same reason that you choose to avoid needless suffering. This applies to moral choices about other life forms, too, if your mind has a moral function.

                An implication of this which seems scary at first, but becomes liberating later, is that

                There is no absolute authority. Only conflict, victory, and defeat.

                My good can be your evil, and in that case, the only solutions are isolation from each other or conflict. We are natural enemies in that case.

                1. I don’t presume to speak for the author of the book, by the way.

                  1. And I meant to respond to the guy who was talking about Hillary Clinton and murder.

                2. Rainer Weikusat says:

                  I’m supposedly a human being and this means my ‘nature’ is rather weak compared to that of other kinds of animals. Instead, I have a culture I’ve learnt to be part of and this culture is malleable as I can learn new things. Other human beings I encounter belong to more-or-less different cultures. Among other things, this implies different (but usually somewhat overlapping) sets of values. Considering the members of both sets which are not also members of the intersection of them, a simple situation would be that person A is wrong about them and person B right. But the usual case will be more like person A is wrong about some things B is right about and vice versa. As there’s an intersection, some common ground also exists. Based on this common ground, both persons can arrive at some new sets of no longer conflicting values by learning about each other provided both are willing to (that’s rare). In case of unwillingness to learn on either or both parts (common case), they’ll end up as more or less open enemies.

                  Nothing is set in stone ‘by nature’ here, it all depends on the individuals in question. Eg, I’ve been living in China in the past and got around pretty well on the assumption that people are just people, that I should have some respect for them and can in turn expect the not-hopeless ones of them to show some respect to me and that we’ll all end up learning how to get along with each other without any party being assimilated. Of course, a Chinese fuckhead is as obnoxious as a German one and in both cases, they exist in numbers, but these people always exist and are best ignored (if possible).

                  1. Your fundamental nature affects which ways you can develop in during life.
                    Your final nature in the end, your current nature, is a combination of genes and memes.

                    I never denied the importance of culture, nor did I say that people can’t learn from each other, or that they don’t sometimes share values.

              2. Vigilance says:

                Show me good the same way you would show me shape or color.

                1. Roger says:

                  Vigilance, I’m not sure that Voddy is using the word ‘good’ in the ‘thick’ sense you are using it.

                  He just means something like -enact those means which will allow you, as an agent, to better achieve your ends (after you have cleansed the doors of perception of slave morality and truly worked out YOUR ends, as opposed to the herd’s ends).

                  My worry with THIS, though, is that it dissolves into egoism pretty quickly.

                  1. “My worry with THIS, though, is that it dissolves into egoism pretty quickly.”

                    If that is your nature, it will. It’s not my nature.

                  2. Necronomeconomist says:

                    Or better put as ‘solipsism’. You’re describing a mentality (or philosophical claim) present in, like, most motherfuckers in the MWS (‘modern world system’, as in Wallerstein), to accurately cope with the income growth outpacing technical limitations.

                    1. Where is the solipsism?

                  3. Vigilance says:

                    I know what he’s after as we’ve had conversations on the subject. I was interested in your take.

                2. Rainer Weikusat says:

                  I can’t show you something you claim to be unable to see (eg, my brother is somewhat colourblind and to him, brown, green, gray and pink(!) are all different shades of the same colour).

                  1. Vigilance says:

                    The point is that values are not a part of the external world of objects but of the internal world of the Subject.

          3. “Denying objectivity of ‘values’ basically reduces these to entirely irrational opinion choices aka ‘tastes’ of the “yellow is the most beautiful colour” kind”

            Is it an “opinion” that certain things inspire awe in you, and other things disgust?
            Or is it a fact of your nature?

            1. Is it an “opinion” that certain things inspire awe in you, and other things disgust?
              Or is it a fact of your nature?

              Maybe both, since it is essentially determined by genetics.

              1. Roger says:

                Absolute dim-wittery.

                Brett: Modern humans are pretty much genetically identical to our Pleistocene ancestors. Yet what they found awe-inspiring (some primitive picture of an animal) we pass over in boredom, reaching for our Ipads.

                So you suggestion that ‘it’s genetic’ is virtually nullified. Same genes (more or less), VERY different priorities.

                1. Rainer Weikusat says:

                  “It’s genetic” is the modern, pseudo-rational equivalent of “the gods demands it”: Genes exist. They’re fundamental for life but fairly little is known about them. Hence, they can be used to justify every status quo in want of a justification without running the risk of colliding with known reality. That’s really an appeal to ignorance — X must be true because we cannot prove it’s not, worded in a way which is believed to be more socially acceptable in our ‘rational’ time than referring to the unknown will of Klono.

                  NB: The same obviously applies to the negation “It’s not genetic” — we don’t know that, either.

                  1. Rainer Weikusat says:

                    “It’s genetic” (like “Klone wants it”) is – of course – an appeal to authority. But while refering to the will of a god ends there as a god is a justified authority because it’s a god, claiming ‘the genes’ are authoritative here is an appeal to ignorance.

                  2. Then again, the argument that all behavioral traits are genetic is compelling since we can measure that. In fact, to argue otherwise at this point is just pretense.

                    1. Roger says:

                      Brett, you still haven’t addressed my point about culture being relatively independent of genes!!!

                      Our Pleistocene ancestors: pretty much the same base sequences of DNA as modern human beings, yet VASTLY different culture(s).

                      Please explain….

        3. Internatio Reloaded says:

          “And that means…what exactly? Are you saying we SHOULD adhere to master morality?”

          He’s saying, like nietzche, that his favorite society model is one where those who feel like masters should behave like masters and live like parasites on the backs of those who feel like slaves who should be encouraged to feel and behave like slaves for that model to keep going on.

          basically it’s the essence of all reactionary thinking.
          The interesting thing when you study those mavericks like Schopenhauer, nietzche etc is that in fact they are quoted, lauded, at length by the supposedly “left” postmoderns (Derrida, Foucault, Deleuze, even the germans like Marcuse etc). The reality is that these over-the-top “lefts” where in fact ready to use up anything as long as it wasn’t Marx, well they claimed to build on him, but only to invert what he said, their real project, as good petty-bourgeois, was to invent a convoluted pseudo-marxism (the term is actually used in Derrida’s Specters of Marx to describe a positive developpement) that would disarm all those who would show interest in a serious revolutionary perspective.

          The key link in that degeneration, is the De Mans (Henri and Paul), Henri, the father was an important socialist politician who drifted toward strong support for nazi occupation of his country in the name of those “nihilist” thinkers and took refuge in Switzerland after the war. His son managed to escape to America as he was less known and he became a postmodern figure there, but it was revealed later that he had also been active in pro-nazi literature during the war. Paul had close links with Derrida.

    3. Cockslave says:

      He who controls this “fact-based knowledge” also controls you.

      1. Agree_to_disagree says:

        Capitalism 101: economy is controlled by nobody – demand for a thing gives such thing monetary value, the rest is mathematics. Foreign exchange markets are a practical example of this.

      2. Necronomeconomist says:

        Swear to god I thought you wrote “fart-based knowledge”. LOOOOOOL

  16. Mustafa says:

    “It escapes the bias of human perspective…”

    Yeah, by being written and analysed by a human. Haha, you couldn’t script this garbage.

    1. He’d have a better starting point with Hume questioning individuation than the aforementioned philosophers. That’s nihilism: there is no self.

  17. Rob says:

    I have ordered a copy on Amazon and look forward to reading it. Everyone else here should also check out a series of books called Aristokratia where Brett also contributes.

  18. It’s the task of every real philosopher to first question and/or disprove (even if in a small manner) that which preceded him. If you go down the pipeline from Plato to Aristotle, or Hume to Kant to Schopenhauer to Nietzsche, each had something more to announce and state where others got ‘it’ wrong. If this book is comprised of feel-good musings and catch phrases, and it doesn’t question its influences, then it’ll have zero impact on the world, and it won’t warrant the respect to be read.

  19. hiarc says:

    Well done Brett. Great to see your work culminated in print form.

  20. HH says:

    Ordered my copy today

  21. Nathan Metric says:

    Funny how everyone here saids “there are no objective values” awhile at the same time basing all their arguments in reference to objective facts as though I have some obligation to respect factual arguments. Yall sure put a lot of faith in these facts of yours.

    U think u post-modern? Well I’m post-post-modern mufucka.

  22. Roger says:

    Here is my take on Brett’s ‘Nihilism’.

    No absolute values: this means that instead of moralizing with people, you find those of the same ‘nature’ and CHOOSE to enact certain (subjective) ways of life. You kill all those who try to stand in your way.

    Everything is genetic: As stated above, the people you choose to associate with and build a life with are of the same ‘nature’ as you. Thus, your civilization will reflect your nature. There will be different kinds of civilisation, under brett’s New World Order, basically mirroring a within-group cast hierarchy found in a single traditional society. Some civilisations will have ‘high art’ and ‘grand architecture’ and ‘philosophy’ while some will have amerika-style suburbs and mediocre jobs, while the lowest civilisation types will be characterised by sex drugs and drink.

    Natural selection on a group level: Nature will promote the higher civilisations over the lower

    **Problems:

    1. It’s all well and good to say that nature will promote the higher civilisations. But then why is mercantilism, capitalism, consumerism and modernity ruling the world at the moment?
    2. The idea that our values come pre-programmed into us by our genes is simply incorrect. I could raise a Plato in suburban america and he would turn out to be a PS4 geek, at best, and at worst an acid-casualty. Our Pleistocene ancestors share nearly all of our genes, yet we have a much different culture and much different values, in most realms beyond the basic (don’t murder in-group members etc). Thus, genes do NOT equal culture, on their own. Moreover, the values of most people reading this are not ‘innate’. You are not ‘higher men’ for sitting on a computer reading about traditionalism and metal. You are product of your genes, your fetal/gestational environment, your childhood development, your culture. You are probably reading this because you are somewhat of an outcast. Again, this is just as much down to your awkward social position than simply your DNA molecules (which are, incidentally, switched on and off by MANY epigenetic and environmental factors in the course of development).

    1. “You kill all those who try to stand in your way.”

      From what he has said on this site, Brett is more peaceful than that. He doesn’t want to destroy other cultures, he wants to leave them alone, and for them to leave him alone. I am the one who is always talking about murder, not him.

      1. Brett is more peaceful than that. He doesn’t want to destroy other cultures, he wants to leave them alone, and for them to leave him alone.

        Hell no I do not want to destroy other cultures. I want them to thrive; the only way for them to do that is for them to exclude everyone else, including me. This is why I refuse to emigrate to any of the really nice places I have visited. How would it help for me to arrive in Costa Rica, Quebec, Saxony, Wales (!!!) or rural France when it would simply introduce another alien and further adulterate the bloodline?

        Let me phrase it this way: there are good people in every tribe, but they are rarely in power. For them to be in power, there must be a strong culture, which tends to reward excellence. This requires sending everyone else away and rejecting the idea of universalism, or that there is one right way to do things and every equal person should do it. Instead, we need localism: each cultural/ethnic group — because traits are genetic, they are one and the same — does what it needs to in order to reach a state of excellence. There is no center of the universe, and no one right way.

        I am not against war, nor for peace; these are means to an end, and sometimes both are called for. I would rather not hurt anyone except the world population of idiots who are approximately seven billion in number and need to be sterilized. Humanity is both overpopulated and experiencing a “quality crash,” and we all benefit from rectifying that.

    2. It’s all well and good to say that nature will promote the higher civilisations. But then why is mercantilism, capitalism, consumerism and modernity ruling the world at the moment?

      This is the vital question. In my view, the answer is this: nature is still working against us, because only by trying to destroy us can it ensure that only the best species rise. Expect attacks from all angles and from within. Trust nothing. Be paranoid — especially of your own inclinations, and especially of other people, who are camouflaged monkeys and still behave like them.

      And the best advice ever is the title of this song:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lq30gSOjJ8

      1. Roger says:

        Why doesn’t the blatant historical fact that culture floats relatively freely from genes raise a vital question, also?

        We share our DNA base sequences with our Pleistocene ancestors. Yet our culture(s) is massively different to theirs. I.e. same genes, different culture…

      2. Roger says:

        PS: Good song.

Comments are closed.